"You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews". (John 4:22)

Thursday, March 2, 2017

Akhimiti and Archimedes

King Hezekiah and the strong Fort of Lachish

Part Two: Akhi-miti’s short tenure

by

Damien F. Mackey

“Azuri king of
Ashdod, not to bring tribute his heart was set, and to the kings in his
neighbourhood proposals of rebellion against Assyria he sent. Because of the
evil he did, over the men of his land I changed his lordship. Akhimiti his own
brother, to sovereignty over them I appointed”.

Introduction

In the course of this series I shall be
presuming that Sargon II was the same Assyrian ruler as Sennacherib:

as “Worrying
Duplications and Anomalies”. These affect not only Sargon II/Sennacherib himself,
but, naturally, his contemporaries, such as our proposed high-priests, Azuri and Akhi-miti (var. Mitinti). As I pointed out on pp. 142, 144:

Worrying Duplications and Anomalies.

1. The ubiquitous king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan II, was:

- already a political factor in the
days of Tiglath-pileser III (c. 744-727 BC).

- He then, supposedly two reigns later,
becomes a complete thorn in Sargon II’s side for the latter’s first,
approximately, 12 years of reign (c. 721-710).

- He then resurfaces at the time of
Sennacherib, who defeats him in his first

campaign and then, finally, in his
fourth campaign (c. 704-700).

Kings
can reign over long periods of time, but this Merodach-baladan seems perhaps to
have overstayed his welcome.

Mitinti of ‘Ashdod’
ranges through the same approximate, long neo-Assyrian period.

….

3.
Sennacherib is thought, already by 713 BC, to have been the recipient, as crown
prince, of the heavy tribute from Azuri
of ‘Ashdod’, who was in fact Sargon’s foe.336

In the course of this series I shall also be
presuming that “Ashdod” as referred to by Sargon II, and by Isaiah (20:1), was the
great Judaean city of Lachish:

Continuing on with my thesis, I also wrote
about the problematical Ashdod:

4.
Disturbing, too, is the following unprecedented situation at ‘Ashdod’ as viewed
by

Tadmor
from the conventional angle:337

Ashdod
was then organized [by Sargon] as an Assyrian province. Sennacherib

however
restored it to its former state as a tributary kingdom. .... Mitinti, the king

of
Ashdod, is mentioned in the Annals of Sennacherib .... There is no doubt, therefore,
that at the time of the campaign of Judah (701) Ashdod had an autonomous king
and not an Assyrian governor. The reorganization of Ashdod - from a province
back to a vassaldom - has no precedent. .... in the time of Esarhaddon Ashdod
was again turned into a province.

All
this topsy turvy supposedly in the space of a few decades!

Akhi-miti

Historians, such as D. Redford, have chosen
to date Akhi-miti’s appointment to the
fort of Ashdod by the Assyrians to 713 BC. Thus I wrote on p. 27:

Redford
has actually called this campaign, that he dates to 712 BC, “an anchor date”.

Here
is his account (my dating of these events will be slightly different from his):83

Thanks
to a variety of studies over the last 25 years, the year 712 B.C. has emerged
as an anchor date in the history of the Late Period in Egypt. The general course
of events leading up to and culminating in the Assyrian campaign against Ashdod
in that year is now fairly sure, and may be sketched as follows. Sometime early
in 713 B.C. the Assyrians deposed Aziri [Azuri], king of Ashdod on suspicion of
lese-majeste, and
appointed one Ahimetti [Akhi-miti] to replace him.

Then I proceeded
to enlarge on all of this, and on Ashdod, on pp. 154-158:

‘Ashdod’

Now,
when Sargon refers to ‘Ashdod, we need to be clear as to which exact location
he had in mind, for he also refers in the same account to an ‘Ashdod-by-the-Sea’.
Thus we read: “Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu [Ashdod-by-the-Sea], I
besieged and captured”. It is the maritime Ashdod357 that I am going to propose - contrary to the usual view - is the well
known Ashdod of the Philistine plain; whilst the ‘Ashdod’ mentioned first here
by Sargon I shall identify as the mighty inland stronghold of Lachish (approx. 50
km south west of Jerusalem), the most important Judaean fort after Jerusalem
itself. These three cities of Lachish, Gath and Ashdod, taken together, formed
something of a line of formidable forts in Judaea358. Assyria had to take them as they were a dangerous base for hostile
Egypt.

That
Sargon would have had to confront Lachish would seem to be inevitable,
militarily, due to the fact that he did indeed capture its neighbouring fort of
Azekah.359 (For
more on this, see pp. 158-159 below). Did not Sargon II boast anyway of his
having been the “subduer of the land of Iaudu (Judah), which lies far away …”?360

Now,
the fortress of Lachish was the high point of Sennacherib’s western campaign.
To no Judaean city apart from Jerusalem itself would the description ‘Ashdod’ …
that is, ‘a very strong place’, apply more aptly than to Lachish. The name ‘Ashdod’,
from the root shádad …, ‘to be strong’, signifies ‘a stronghold’. “What a surprise, then”,
writes Russell,361 regarding
the surrender of Lachish, “to turn to the annalistic account of that same
campaign - inscribed on the bulls at the throne-room entrance - and discover
that Lachish is not mentioned at all”.

Was it
that Sargon II - hence, that Sennacherib - had instead referred to Lachish by the
descriptive title of ‘Ashdod’, whose capture Sargon covers in detail?

Let us
now follow [Charles] Boutflower in his reconstruction of this somewhat complex
campaign, referring to the fragment Sm. 2022 of Sargon’s Annals, which he calls
“one particularly precious morsel”:362

The
longer face [of this fragment] ... has a dividing line drawn across it near the
bottom. Immediately below this line, and somewhat to the left, there can be
seen with the help of a magnifying-glass a group of nine cuneiform indentations

arranged
in three parallel horizontal rows. Even the uninitiated will easily understand
that we have here a representation of the number “9”. It is this figure, then,
which gives to the fragment its special interest, for it tells us, as I am
about to show, “the year that the Tartan came unto Ashdod”.

Boutflower
now moves on to the focal point of Assyria’s concerns: mighty ‘Ashdod’:363

The
second difficulty in Sm. 2022 is connected with the mention of Ashdod in the part
below the dividing line. According to the reckoning of time adopted on this fragment
something must have happened at Ashdod at the beginning of Sargon’s ninth year,
i.e. at the beginning of the tenth year, the year 712 BC, according to the better-known
reckoning of the Annals. Now, when we turn to the Annals and examine the record
of this tenth year, we find no mention whatever of Ashdod. Not till we come to
the second and closing portion of the record for the eleventh year do we meet
with the account of the famous campaign against that city.

What,
then, is the solution to this second difficulty Boutflower asks? And he answers
this as follows:364

Simply
this: that the mention of Ashdod on the fragment Sm. 2022 does not refer to the
siege of that town, which, as just stated, forms the second and closing event in
the record of the following year, but in all probability does refer to the
first of those political events which led up to the siege, viz. the coming of
the Tartan to Ashdod. To make this plain, I will now give the different
accounts of the Ashdod imbroglio found in the inscriptions of Sargon, beginning
with the one in the Annals (lines 215-228) already referred to, which runs
thus:

“Azuri
king of Ashdod, not to bring tribute his heart was set, and to the kings in his
neighbourhood proposals of rebellion against Assyria he sent. Because of the
evil he did, over the men of his land I changed his lordship. Akhimiti his own
brother, to sovereignty over them I appointed. The Khatte [Hittites], plotting
rebellion, hated his lordship; and Yatna, who had no title to the throne, who,
like themselves, the reverence due to my lordship did not acknowledge, they set
up over them. In the wrath of my heart, riding in my war-chariot, with my
cavalry, who do not retreat from the place whither I turn my hands, to Ashdod,
his royal city, I marched in haste. Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu … I
besieged and captured. …”.

Typical
Assyrian war records! Boutflower shows how they connect right through to

Sargon’s
Year 11, which both he and Tadmor365 date to 711 BC:366

The
above extract forms ... the second and closing portion of the record given in the
Annals under Sargon’s 11th year, 711 BC., the earlier portion of the record for
that year being occupied with the account of the expedition against Mutallu of Gurgum.
In the Grand Inscription of Khorsabad we meet with a very similar account,
containing a few fresh particulars. The usurper Yatna, i.e. “the Cypriot”, is
there styled Yamani, “the Ionian”, thus showing that he was a Greek. We are also
told that he fled away to Melukhkha on the border of Egypt, but was thrown into
chains by the Ethiopian king and despatched to Assyria.

....
In order to effect the deposition of the rebellious Azuri, and set his brother Akhimiti
on the throne, Sargon sent forth an armed force to Ashdod. It is in all probablity
the despatch of such a force, and the successful achievement of the end in
view, which were recorded in the fragment Sm. 2022 below the dividing line. As
Isa xx.1 informs us - and the statement, as we shall presently see, can be verified
from contemporary sources - this first expedition was led by the Tartan. Possibly
this may be the reason why it was not thought worthy to be recorded in the
Annals under Sargon’s tenth year, 712 BC. But when we come to the eleventh year,
711 BC, and the annalist very properly and suitably records the whole series of
events leading up to the siege, two things at once strike us: first, that all
these events could not possibly have happened in the single year 711 BC; and
secondly, as stated above, that a force must have previously been despatched at
the beginning of the troubles to accomplish the deposition of Azuri and the
placing of Akhimiti on the throne. On the retirement of this force sedition
must again have broken out in Ashdod, for it appears that the anti-Assyrian
party were able, after a longer or shorter interval, once more to get the upper
hand, to expel Akhimiti, and to set up in his stead a Greek adventurer,
Yatna-Yamani. The town was then strongly fortified, and surrounded by a moat.

We have by no means seen the end of the important Akhi-miti, or Mitinti, who will re-emerge again shortly, during King Sennacherib’s
major campaign to Judah, as King Hezekiah’s chief official, Eliakim son of Hilkiah
(Isaiah 36:3).

And then he will further emerge as the high priest,
Joakim (Joiakim) of the Book of Judith, during Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign
occurring about a decade later.

*
* *

Archimedes

Did the Greeks appropriate the C8th BC official, Akhi-miti, and re-cast him as Archimedes, about whom “… very little is known about the early life of Archimedes or his family”? http://archimedespalimpsest.org/about/history/archimedes.php
- and, about whom there are “… many fantastic tales
surrounding the life of Archimedes”.

Given that Stephanie Dalley has now proved that the
water screw, thought to have been invented by Archimedes, was in use as early
as the time of King Sennacherib of Assyria (“Sennacherib, Archimedes, and the
Water Screw”: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/40151),
we have to be very doubtful, I think, of the historical reality of this Archimedes.

Famed for his supposedly having held off the
besieging Romans, this may be just another of the many legends that have arisen
from the historical dramas at the time of King Hezekiah of Judah, at both of
which Eliakim (= Akhi-miti?) was
present: namely Sennacherib’s aborted siege of Jerusalem, and the later siege by
the Assyrian army as recorded in the Book of Judith.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search This Blog

Boy Jesus Reading The Scriptures

About Us

What is the Australian Marian Academy of the Immaculate Conception (AMAIC)? The Australian Marian Academy [AMA], as it was initially known, was formed in the early 1980s largely by a group of academics and teachers devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, particularly under her title of Our Lady of the Rosary (at Fatima). In May of 1988 this was the description of the Australian Marian Academy written into our Constitution (p. 19):
As a recognized “aggregate of persons” [CJC Can. 115] the Academy “is a private association of Christ’s faithful striving with common effort to foster a more perfect life … and to promote Christian teaching” [Can. 298]. Its Constitution has been reviewed by the competent authority [Can. 299 §3]. It chooses to exercise its juridical personhood through an Executive of 7 members. [ Can. 115, §2].